The effect of illegal immigration

Ifeel compelled to respond to Larry Blanton’s Letter regarding Phillip Germain’s letter from Feb 3. Yes, this is a letter about a letter about a letter. How very exciting.

Let’s dissect a few of his comments. Blanton begins with:

“Mr. Germain and the rest of his ilk never distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. We have at least 11 million illegal immigrants in California alone, that cost our state $30 billion a year, according to the conservative National Economics Editorial. Even if it’s half that, it’s far too much.”

This needs some fact-checking. First, according to the non-partisan Pew Research Center, there are 11.3 million illegal immigrants in the United States, as of 2016. Blanton is right; that figure is too high. That’s why we ought to legalize these individuals.

In addition, he is correct in pointing out that illegal immigrants do cost taxpayers money, approximately $54.2 billion a year, according to the conservatives at the Heritage Foundation.

Some may consider this a grave injustice: “Dang Nabbit! My hard-earned income is going toward lawbreaking immigrants!”

But in my view, it is money well spent. Undocumented immigrants contribute ten times more wealth than they take from society, through their consumer spending and labor in critical industries like agriculture and construction. That’s according to a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a leading think tank that works extensively with liberal and conservative experts.

In other words, we subsidize undocumented immigrants, and in return they generate $500 billion in economic activity. That’s a sweet deal. If this nation is okay with handing out subsidies to corporations in exchange for the new wealth they create, then it ought to accept assisting immigrants in this manner too.

Or should we only have empathy for fat cats? Now back to Blanton: “We are a nation of laws Mr. Germain. There won’t be any American dream if we continue to allow unchecked illegal immigration and provide them with numerous taxpayer-funded benefits. The United States is $20 trillion in debt! How long can this go on?”

Larry, hardly anyone argues for unchecked illegal immigration. The mainstream Democratic position is that we should legalize the undocumented currently residing in our country and secure the border. It is wise to remember that second part. As for your bit about the debt, I will repeat: undocumented immigrants create more wealth than they take. They help us pay down our debt rather than enlarge it.

“Obamacare is great if you get other taxpayers to pay for it. But those who don’t qualify for the subsidy have seen their rates skyrocket. Premiums increased 56 percent in Minnesota to a staggering 116 percent in Arizona (FiscalTimes.com).”

This was near the end of your letter, and because I’m an openminded guy, let me acknowledge where you are correct. Yes, premiums under Obamacare are too high and the subsidies too meager. But that does not mean the United States shouldn’t continue toward universal health care. Many of our major allies around the globe have implemented this policy. Countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, and France are able to do it for cheaper than the American system while achieving marvelous health outcomes.

Furthermore — and here’s the kicker — no democratic nation that has implemented universal health care has ever undone this reform. Isn’t that astonishing? Don’t you think if it was such a bad idea you would find at least one country that has turned away from it? These pieces of information are enough to draw a simple conclusion: a world where every American has access to affordable, quality health insurance is possible.

“President Trump’s address cut through the utopian and emotional liberal fog and focused on the hard realities that face this country.”

Hey, I liked the State of The Union also. The president was openminded enough to endorse moderate ideas like paid family leave, criminal justice reform, and a new infrastructure program. All good things, but as my paragraphs here show, we liberals have an important case to make as well.

Make job description reviews routine

Maybe it’s just me, but I was appalled and astounded to read the front page article on Feb. 7 that the Saugus School Board was reviewing and making changes to the superintendent’s job description after 20 years!

As an HR guy I cannot fathom that this hasn’t been done more often. Times change and to have any job description that is not kept current seems somewhat apathetic to me. I do understand that reviewing JD’s is certainly not something that most businesses managers and organizations like to do, but it is critical in the hiring process.

Reviewing JD’s doesn’t have to be a hair pulling process, in reality it can be made easier and more palatable. In my experience one of the best ways to keep a job description current is through the employee exit process. When someone leaves an organization (other than for cause), give them a copy of their job description and have them mark it up. Strike out stuff they did not do, add in the stuff they did. Have a supervisory team who understands the position review it and give to Human Resources for wordsmithing. And it’s done.

While this process may not work in all situations, one thing that best practices in hiring demands is that the job description be topically current and valid to the job itself. Business, any business, is about the customer or end user, and 20 years was way too long.

But kudos for finally getting around to it. Oh yes, it is OK to review a job while the current position holder is still there. Like I said, times change and so must business. While the district is at it, perhaps they should look at other jobs that need to be reviewed. Those would be tax dollars well spent.

Take advantage of greener energy

“Clean power alliance begins serving its first customers” (Feb 1)

Thank you for the piece announcing that consumers in some cities in Los Angeles County will be able this year to choose greener energy through the Clean Power Alliance (formerly Community Choice Energy).

In reading the article, I couldn’t fail to notice that Santa Clarita is not on the list of cities taking advantage of the program, and I wonder why the City Council would choose not to participate.

Through the alliance, cities can save money by joining in a coalition to purchase electricity wholesale and can then pass the savings on to residents and businesses. Greenhouse gas emissions could be decreased by up to 9 percent in the region, which would improve residents’ respiratory health.

What’s not to like about this program?

Could Southern California Edison, which now has a virtual monopoly on electricity in this area, be pressuring the City Council not to participate because it might affect their bottom line?

I’m sure if residents of Santa Clarita were asked, they would want to have greater choice in the kind of energy they’re using, renewable vs. fossil fuel, lower prices and better air quality.

The City Council would do well to join this alliance, putting the welfare of the people they represent, and voters, first, while at the same time furthering their plan to make Santa Clarita greener.